It not about a "gun culture," but a "death culture."

[Quetzal]

Says the warrior princess. :yawn:

It is a very basic question. What is the difference between a knife and firearm?

 

[elohiym]

It is a very basic question. What is the difference between a knife and firearm?

One difference is that more murderers prefer to use a knife than either a rifle or a shotgun. Another difference is far more people are seriously injured by knives every year than by guns. You don't seem to care about that. :think:

 

[Quetzal]

One difference is that more murderers prefer to use a knife than either a rifle or a shotgun.

You are cherry picking. Murderers VASTLY prefer handguns to any of the above.

Another difference is far more people are seriously injured by knives every year than by guns. You don't seem to care about that. :think:

Source, please.

 

[TomO]

It is a very basic question. What is the difference between a knife and firearm?

Effective range....And that's it. Unless you wish to count that the knife uses mechanical energy (like a bow & arrow) while the firearm relies on chemical energy. lain:

 

[Quetzal]

Effective range....And that's it. Unless you wish to count that the knife uses mechanical energy (like a bow & arrow) while the firearm relies on chemical energy. lain:

Really? That is it, there is nothing else that makes them different?

 

[TomO]

Really? That is it, there is nothing else that makes them different?

No....What am I missing?...Technological advancement?

Enthrall me with your knowledge of weaponry.

 

[Quetzal]

No....What am I missing?...Technological advancement?

Enthrall me with your knowledge of weaponry.

I suppose the idea that I can stand 5-10 yards away with a standard clip and drop a moderate sized group of people is something worth mentioning. The fact that a firearm can cause more destruction to more individuals, faster, is something that I am not willing to ignore. You can't downplay the advantage of a firearm when comparing it to a knife.

 

[elohiym]

You are cherry picking. Murderers VASTLY prefer handguns to any of the above.

But murderers vastly prefer knives to rifles and shotguns. You don't care about that, so why should I care more prefer handguns to knives?

Source, please.

Knife-related injuries treated in United States emergency departments, 1990-2008.

 

[elohiym]

Really? That is it, there is nothing else that makes them different?

A gun has more moving parts, requires ammunition to be lethal and is more complicated to use.

 

[Quetzal]

But murderers vastly prefer knives to rifles and shotguns. You don't care about that, so why should I care more prefer handguns to knives?

You are being blatantly ignorant and dense.

Knife-related injuries treated in United States emergency departments, 1990-2008.

Guns are not considered hand tools, his abstract does not apply to guns.

Knives cause more disabling injuries than any other type of hand tool.

 

[TomO]

I suppose the idea that I can stand 5-10 yards away with a standard clip and drop a moderate sized group of people is something worth mentioning. The fact that a firearm can cause more destruction to more individuals, faster, is something that I am not willing to ignore. You can't downplay the advantage of a firearm when comparing it to a knife.

That is due to the fact that the firearm is a ranged weapon (As I noted, I didn't "downplay" anything, I simply gave you an accurate answer devoid of emotionalism's)....If you take away the range; the weapon loses it's advantage.

 

[Quetzal]

That is due to the fact that the firearm is a ranged weapon (As I noted, I didn't "downplay" anything, I simply gave you an accurate answer devoid of emotionalism's)....If you take away the range; the weapon loses it's advantage.

That advantage is enormous and the fact that it is a serious consideration in comparison to a knife is ridiculous.

 

[TomO]

That advantage is enormous and the fact that it is a serious consideration in comparison to a knife is ridiculous.

You are correct that the advantage can be enormous but....

:juggle: No....Not really. Do yourself a favor and look up the "21 foot rule" and consider that not all altercations take place in the great wide open.

 

[elohiym]

You are being blatantly ignorant and dense.

So you have no argument.

Guns are not considered hand tools, his abstract does not apply to guns.

It still proves my claim unless you can show greater numbers over the same period for gun injuries.

 

[ClimateSanity]

I am a pacifist.

The thread is about murder not being the fault of a "gun culture" but a "death culture." Guns are relatively harmless, like knives. It takes a person with a certain mindset to commit murder; the focus should be on that mindset and what fosters it rather than on guns.

In America, its do unto only those whom you agree with philosophically as you would have them do to you. It is also heartless in America to have huge differences in wealth and indifference to the environment and yet it is perfectly fine to slander, revile and deligitimize your enemy. This is a sample of our death culture.

 

[Quetzal]

You are correct that the advantage can be enormous but....

:juggle: No....Not really. Do yourself a favor and look up the "21 foot rule" and consider that not all altercations take place in the great wide open.

The 21 foot rule does not apply if you are drawing a weapon on an unaware target.

 

[Quetzal]

It still proves my claim unless you can show greater numbers over the same period for gun injuries.

No, it doesn't. It proves that a knife causes more injuries than a socket wrench. In which case, you are correct.

 

[elohiym]

No, it doesn't. It proves that a knife causes more injuries than a socket wrench. In which case, you are correct.

An estimated 8,250,914 (95% confidence interval [CI] 7,149,074-9,352,755) knife-related injuries were treated in US EDs from 1990 to 2008, averaging 434,259 (95% CI 427,198-441,322) injuries annually, or 1190 per day. (Source)

An estimated 34 485 (95% confidence interval [CI], 25 225-43 745) persons (6.7 per 100 000 population; 95% CI, 4.9-8.5) were treated for unintentional, nonfatal firearm-related injuries in US emergency departments during the 2-year study period. (Source)​

What more evidence do I need to prove my claim?

 

[Quetzal]

An estimated 8,250,914 (95% confidence interval [CI] 7,149,074-9,352,755) knife-related injuries were treated in US EDs from 1990 to 2008, averaging 434,259 (95% CI 427,198-441,322) injuries annually, or 1190 per day. (Source)

An estimated 34 485 (95% confidence interval [CI], 25 225-43 745) persons (6.7 per 100 000 population; 95% CI, 4.9-8.5) were treated for unintentional, nonfatal firearm-related injuries in US emergency departments during the 2-year study period. (Source)​

What more evidence do I need to prove my claim?

Your first study is over a period of 18 years. The second study is over two, they are not comparable.

 

[elohiym]

Your first study is over a period of 18 years. The second study is over two, they are not comparable.

It's obviously sufficient to prove my claim that far more people are seriously injured by knives every year than by guns. You've offered no evidence to the contrary.